ReadWrite - internet tvhttp://readwrite.com/tag/internet-tv
enCopyright 2015 Wearable World Inc.http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssTue, 31 Mar 2015 15:05:02 -0700No, Wait—Amazon Really Should Launch A Free Streaming Service<!-- tml-version="2" --><p>Amazon has long labored in the shadows of Netflix and Hulu when it comes to streaming TV shows and movies. It could change all that with a rumored Internet streaming plan that would bear more than a passing resemblance to old-fashioned broadcast television—free for all, just with commercial ad breaks.</p><p>There's just one problem—Amazon denies that it has plans to launch any such service, so it likely won't be part of its <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tv-streaming-device-2014-4">big announcement in New York on Wednesday</a>. Which is too bad, because Amazon really should do this.</p><blockquote tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><p><strong>See also: <a href="http://readwrite.com/2014/04/01/amazon-streaming-device">Amazon's TV-Streaming Box Is Almost Here</a></strong></p></blockquote><p>Last Thursday, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579465690663213198?mg=reno64-wsj&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304688104579465690663213198.html">the Wall Street Journal reported</a>&nbsp;that Amazon was planning a big push for a free, ad-supported streaming service featuring TV shows and music videos. It would feature both original and licensed programming, and might launch "in the coming months," the WSJ report said.</p><p>Whoops. An Amazon spokeswoman told me a day later that "we’re often experimenting with new things, but we have no plans to offer a free streaming media service."</p><p>The notion, however, is entirely plausible. Amazon's least expensive—but very popular—Kindle e-readers, for instance, display “special offer” advertisements on the main screen, making their discounted price possible. The company also runs ads with movie and game trailers and lets owners of its Kindle Fire tablet <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201361340">stream the first episode of some shows for free</a>.</p><h2>Amazon Streaming Could Use A Boost</h2><p>So free, ad-supported streaming wouldn't be totally alien to Amazon's culture. It's also got a lot of ground to make up, and could use some help.</p><p><a href="https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/the-npd-group-as-tv-viewing-drives-subscription-video-on-demand-netflix-dominates-but-hulu-plus-and-amazon-gain/">According to NPD Group</a>, 67% of U.S. streaming users with only one service chose Netflix in the first quarter of 2013. Hulu Plus snagged 10%, while Prime only grabbed 2%. The study confirmed that, although Amazon has been growing, it hasn't come remotely close to challenging, much less toppling, Netflix.</p><p>As for the actual streams, <a href="https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2013/2h-2013-global-internet-phenomena-report.pdf">Sandvine’s Global Internet Phenomena Report</a>&nbsp;put Netflix in the lead, with 31.62 percent of all peak downstream (i.e., download) traffic in September 2013. Amazon had just 1.61 percent.&nbsp;</p><p>Amazon would love to change all that. But to have any chance of success, it first needs to do one thing: expand its streaming catalog. As a subscriber, I can attest to the fact that its current free Instant Watch options for Prime members comes up short next to Netflix, Hulu, HBO GO, and others. And its own original offerings haven’t exactly lit the world on fire. (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pilot-HD/dp/B00CDBR1P6/ref=sr_1_1"><em>Betas</em></a> is no <a href="http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/House_of_Cards/70178217?locale=en-US"><em>House of Cards</em></a>.)</p><h2>And Then There's This Wild Card</h2><p>Inventory is crucial; so is the need to make Amazon's streaming video as widely available on as many different devices as possible. (Set aside for the moment that Amazon doesn't offer the service on Android gadgets beyond its own Kindle Fire tablets.) But the company has something else up its sleeve that may help with that availability issue.</p><p>Amazon is likely to <a href="http://readwrite.com/2014/04/01/amazon-streaming-device">introduce its own branded streaming-TV device</a> at its New York City press event today. Should Amazon one day change its mind and actually offer free commercial-supported streaming on that box, it would have a potent weapon with with to battle the Google gadget—not to mention Roku and Apple TV.&nbsp;</p><p>So far, Amazon's streaming availability has been rather scattershot. Currently, Prime members get a library of free streaming options, while others must pay to rent or buy videos. Both are available on Roku, but not on Chromecast or Apple TV. And an Amazon streaming app comes installed with TiVo boxes, but it only works for paid video.</p><p>With its own device in the mix, Amazon has the opportunity to stake its own claim in this hardware fracas. Ad-supported streaming would make its gadget that much more appealing. A cheap or free TV box that offers free streaming? That would make for one heck of a one-two punch.</p><p><em>Feature image by Adriana Lee for ReadWrite</em></p>Sure, Amazon has denied reports that it plans to launch an ad-supported streaming service. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea.http://readwrite.com/2014/04/02/amazon-free-ad-tv-on-the-web-streaming
http://readwrite.com/2014/04/02/amazon-free-ad-tv-on-the-web-streamingWebWed, 02 Apr 2014 05:05:00 -0700Adriana LeeGoogle Has A Trojan Horse To Disrupt TV: Really, Really Big Data<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2822aa0018266" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjU4MTM0ODY3MjI1.jpg" /></figure></div><p>It's a <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/05/01/why-2013-is-a-watershed-year-for-tvs-online-future">huge year for TV's future</a>. Yet for all the excitement about Web-first soap operas, data-driven programming and <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-review">the disruption of broadcast</a>, the Internet TV "inflection point" that 2013 has become is just the beginning. A Trojan horse is slowly rolling into town, and it's bursting at the seams with data. Wheeling it along is none other than Google.&nbsp;</p><p>Indeed, if the data-fueled success of Netflix's <em>House of Cards</em> is as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9858710/House-of-Cards-the-future-of-TV-has-arrived.html">crucial to TV's future as many believe</a>, what Google is most likely planning will make the transformation we've witnessed so far look like early innings in a very long ball game.</p><p>First, though, a caveat: Google has said almost nothing about its plans for taking on the TV market, and I don't have any new inside information to offer on that front. What follows is instead a giant thought experiment — a plausible (to me, at least), fact-based extrapolation of just how thoroughly Google could disrupt the TV industry should it put its mind to it. And should users consent to its plans.</p><h2>TV's Future Hinges On Content, Data and UX</h2><p>Whatever TV looks like in the future, it will be built atop three crucial components: content, intelligence and user experience. A fourth element, known as actually making money, hinges heavily on the "intelligence" part — which is to say, data.&nbsp;</p><p>The industry is collectively still figuring out the user experience part. Apple is rumored to have "cracked" the interface problem, but until Steve Jobs's prophetic words find a home in reality, we're stuck with the puzzle's most promising pieces: the likes of AirPlay, Roku and a small army of creative video app designers.&nbsp;</p><p>That leaves the content and intelligence parts, which are what Netflix is purported to have mastered with <em>House of Cards</em> and what Amazon hopes to mimic with with its own Internet-first TV pilots. Hulu has taken its own stabs, but has yet to score a <em>House of Cards</em>-sized hit.</p><p>For the last few years, Google's YouTube has also invested quite heavily in original, TV-quality programming for Internet audiences. It, too, is still trying to find its Kevin Spacey. But it's likely only a matter of time before everybody's buzzing about the new show on YouTube, much like we've long chattered about double rainbows and <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/10/08/charlie-bit-my-finger-web-tv-series">finger-biting babies</a>.&nbsp;</p><p>Google will find its killer content. It will do so in part by leveraging the very thing that gives the company an advantage in just about any space it enters: all that data.&nbsp;</p><h2>YouTube: A Burgeoning Trove Of User Data</h2><p>An absurdly funny standup <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BWVvmDnF7s">routine by Louis CK</a>? Thumbs up. A mini-documentary <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA&amp;list=WL5F5F4410129C289D">about 3D-printed guns</a>? Consider the "Watch Later" button tapped. &nbsp;Every music video I ever wanted to see? YouTube has them too, and designating my favorites is effortless. With every tap of each of YouTube's buttons — thumbs up, add to a playlist, watch later and, most importantly, "play" — I'm feeding fresh data to the world's biggest video site. Which, in turn, it uses to build out personalized recommendations, not unlike the special sauce Netflix used to wipe out Blockbuster.</p><p>Of course, the data on Netflix's servers is a bit more useful when it comes to recommending long form, Hollywood-caliber video to its users, since that's what Netflix specializes in exclusively. It's the type of knowledge Google will presumably get better at building as its selection of professionally-produced video expands.&nbsp;</p><h2>What Google Knows - And Will Know - About Us&nbsp;</h2><p>In the meantime, Google is building out a much richer profile of its users than Netflix and Hulu could ever dream of creating.</p><p>Outside of YouTube, Google knows a great deal about us. Just how much it knows varies depending on how heavily you use Google's services — and how finely you tune your privacy settings.</p><p>For me, that data includes my browsing history (across devices), email, documents, voicemails, eight years of search queries, detailed location data from Maps, a limited view of my schedule from Google Calendar (I mostly use iCal) and a smattering of other data points from the more than 25 different active services tied to my Gmail account/ And I'm not even an Android user.</p><p>These services don't all swap data freely — and my Google Drive may well contain no information that's of value to YouTube. But collectively, these services build out a rather richly-detailed general profile of who we are, what we do, where we go and what we enjoy. In theory, YouTube has the capability of knowing not just what Netflix knows — what we watch, when we skip, how we rate — but also quite a lot about who we are in general.&nbsp;</p><p>In the future — if Google's master plan unfolds accordingly — this will all be buttressed with social insights. As its social efforts ramp up, our list of Gmail contacts becomes much more informative: who's in which circles? What do they +1? Who do I trust?&nbsp;</p><p>Google+ is still the exclusive domain of early adopters and media geeks, but in time the company intends for it to become a viable alternative to Facebook and will eagerly ingest all of the social data points that come with that distinction. You can catch an early glimpse of how Google intends to use social data in the next iteration of its Maps interface, which will leverage your social connections to provide recommendations about where to go next. Think Google Now for your physical location.&nbsp;</p><h2>How Google Could Use This Data To Win At TV</h2><p>Similarly, we may one day see Google Now for TV. That is, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/05/15/google-search-anticipatory-system-io13">anticipatory content recommendations</a> fueled by your viewing history, social connections and insights inferred from a complex tapestry of data points from across services and devices.&nbsp;</p><p>Recommendations are important (indeed, cracking this code certainly helped put Netflix in a position to win with <em>House of Cards</em>), but they're only the beginning of what's possible when television is fueled by very, very big data. As its video efforts ramp up, Google — like Netflix before it — will be able to factor in mountains of user data to determine not just what to recommend, but what content to buy the exclusive rights to, or even produce outright.&nbsp;</p><p>Unlike other Internet TV shows, these new premium productions will sit within the world's biggest repository of online video. Sure, much of it is garbage, but the sheer scale of the material it has on hand increases Google's ability to smartly serve up relevant, worthwhile videos to people who come to check out its new shows. Not to mention how easy it would be to rope YouTube's casual, cat video-watching users into clicking the play button on their next big TV-style program. <em>House of Cats</em>, anyone?</p><p>In the fall, Nielsen is going to start factoring Internet viewing stats into its decades-old TV-viewing measurement methodology. It's a move that's widely viewed as being both long overdue and symbolic of where TV is heading. If you ask me, Nielsen isn't going far or fast enough to stay relevant. The further companies like Google move into the TV space, the less sense the old, panel-based methodology for tracking makes sense.&nbsp;</p><p>In a<a href="http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/05/19/why-google-will-crush-nielsen/"> recent post on the <em>Monday Note</em>,</a> Frédéric Filloux argues that the sample-based method Nielsen uses to track Web user activity is ripe to be upended by Google's far more sophisticated mechanisms, which even go so far as to use statistical pairing to filter out repeat visitors that may be coming to the same site from multiple devices. Filloux is referring to Web tracking, not TV viewership — the traditional part of which Nielsen is uniquely capable of measuring.</p><p>But his argument carries over into the realm of online video and usage, which Google is far better at measuring than Nielsen is. As more viewers turn to the Internet for what we've historically referred to as "TV", Google's method — and what it means for potential advertisers — becomes a lot more attractive than Nielsen's.</p><p>When it comes time to monetize those shows, all that big data will be just as useful. This is, of course, Google's specialty. The company that figured out how to make billions by serving contextually relevant ads to people searching the Web is probably well-positioned to do the same with the future version of what we once knew as television commercials.&nbsp;</p><h2>What Stands In The Way</h2><p>Just because Google has the algorithmic capacity to acquire, smartly deliver and monetize rave-worthy content on a disruptive scale, that doesn't mean it will. If this indeed what Google plans to do, it's going to have to clear some hurdles.&nbsp;</p><p>For one, there are privacy implications associated with the type of cross-service data sharing Google would need to do in order to build out these rich, super-profiles of viewers. Using that data to sell video ads won't go over well with everyone, even if it isn't that far off from what Google does with Web search ads. The change could be as simple as a privacy policy update and opt-in button, but nothing Google does on that front will ever fail to arouse concerns about privacy.&nbsp;</p><p>Then there's the content issue, which is huge. YouTube already houses a massive amount of video, and Google likely has the intelligence to find its own <em>House of Cards</em>. But when it comes to hosting premium, TV-caliber content, Google is still playing catch up.</p><p>As <a href="http://www.wired.com/business/2011/12/tv-microsoft-right-apple-wrong/all/">Tim Carmody pointed out recently</a>, Microsoft is much better positioned to win the living room than Apple is, primarily because Microsoft has managed to pull together the most compelling selection of content.&nbsp;(The same argument applies if you substitute Google for Apple.)&nbsp;That includes not just video games like Halo and Gears of War but online video sources and live TV available directly from cable providers.</p><p><a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-microsoft-event-launch">With the XBox One</a>, Microsoft also takes a pretty compelling stab at the interface problem. It doesn't eliminate the hand-held remote, but rather augments it with voice control and gesture-based interfaces that make us feel like we're truly living in the future.</p><p>To win at TV, Google is going to have to learn from products like the XBox One and incorporate a level of polish and attention to the user experience as its done with its more recent Android versions and handsets. If Google can create the Nexus 4 or set top boxes, loaded up with with a bulletproof UX and a wide selection of supreme-quality content, the Apples and Amazons of the world will have some catching up to do. And the traditional players will be screwed.</p>If you enjoyed "House of Cards" and the implications of Netflix's data-driven strategy, just wait until you get a sense of what Google could do in TV if it chose.http://readwrite.com/2013/05/24/google-has-a-trojan-horse-to-disrupt-tv-really-really-big-data
http://readwrite.com/2013/05/24/google-has-a-trojan-horse-to-disrupt-tv-really-really-big-dataPlayFri, 24 May 2013 10:08:00 -0700John Paul Titlow2013: The Year Internet TV Went Mainstream<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2825880018266" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzNDU0ODk4MDYxOTI2.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Something huge is happening in online TV this year. No, it's not a new streaming set top box or Web-exclusive video series. It's not even an app. It's a milestone: 2013 is the year that Internet-first TV became truly normal.&nbsp;</p><p>People have been watching TV programs online at places like Hulu and Netflix for years. But until recently, most that viewing has involved programs that had previously aired on broadcast or cable TV. There have long been geek-centric webisodes of TV-esque programming online, but nothing that everyday people would watch. This year, things are changing.&nbsp;</p><h2>"An Inflection Point For Online Television"</h2><p>For evidence of the mainstreaming of Web-first TV, look no further than the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/media/two-classics-of-the-soaps-are-heading-to-the-web.html">online revival of <em>All My Children</em> and <em>One Life to Live</em></a>. The classic TV soap operas are returning not to a broadcast network, but to Hulu and iTunes. It may sound like a distribution strategy fit for a tech video podcast or no-name Web TV series, but these are soap operas. TV doesn't get more mainstream than this.</p><p><strong>(See also: <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/the-internets-assault-on-traditional-tv-is-working">The Internet's Assault On Traditional TV Is Working</a>)</strong></p><p>Citing an "inflection point for online television", the shows' backers are betting big on the notion that enough people watch TV online these days to make this a profitable endeavor. If recent history is any indication, it's a safe bet.</p><p>The first sign of Internet TV's legitimacy among mainstream audiences came earlier this year with <em>House of Cards</em>. We still don't know precisely how many people tuned into Netflix's TV-quality political drama, but it's clearly been popular among the service's 29 million subscribers, as well as many critics.</p><p>Most importantly, the show got people talking. Not just tech-savvy people living their lives online, but normal, everyday people. Suddenly, you could hear <em>House of Cards</em> being chattered about at parties as though it was the latest drama on HBO, <a href="http://qz.com/77067/netflix-now-bigger-than-hbo/">whose U.S. subscriber count Netflix just surpassed</a>. (Sort of, at least.)</p><p>At <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20130430/hulus-pitch-to-advertisers-4-million-people-pay-us-to-see-your-ads/">4 million subscribers</a>, Hulu is markedly smaller than Netflix, but it's growing fast. And unlike Netflix, Hulu lets non-subscribers stream shows for free from the desktop, so the potential reach of shows like the new <em>All My Children</em> isn't capped at 4 million, or even 29 million, for that matter. Then there's iTunes, through which viewers will be able to purchase individual episodes.</p><h2>The Imperfect Science of Measuring Web TV</h2><p>Even on these popular online services, these soap operas will almost certainly fall short of the kind of ratings numbers they used to see on daytime TV. It's impossible to know for sure, since each of these services has different viewership metrics and they're not particularly eager to share. Even Netflix, which proudly boasts the success of <em>House of Cards</em>, won't say just how many people actually watched the show.&nbsp;</p><p>The measurement challenge might begin to change soon, as Nielsen moves toward measurement tools that Internet sources into account. Next month, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323798104578453291286696164-lMyQjAxMTAzMDMwMDEzNDAyWj.html">a temporary pilot run</a> of its Nielsen Digital Program Ratings will track online views from the networks' own websites. In time, the tracking method could become a standard utilized by an array of online video services, finally painting an accurate picture of what's getting watched.&nbsp;</p><p>Nielsen has a long way to go with Internet TV measurement, but the fact that it's tinkering with a decades-old formula is a sign that online TV viewership is now too enormous for it to ignore if it wants to stay relevant.</p><p>Before the year is halfway over, we'll have another test of Internet TV's mainstream appeal when <em>Arrested Development</em>'s fourth season lands on Netflix. Like the soap operas, <em>Arrested Development</em> is making the leap from TV to online, but in this case the show is backed by eight years of anticipation and the same data-driven smarts that all but ensured <em>House of Cards</em> would be a hit.&nbsp;</p><p>Again, we won't know how many people will actually tune in to the new season of <em>Arrested Development</em>&nbsp;unless Netflix decides to share that data. In the meantime, we'll have only limited, largely anecdotal clues to go from. Perhaps the most important: Are people talking about this? I don't mean on Twitter, but at the bar. That's how we'll really know that a new era in television's history is underway.&nbsp;</p>Something huge is happening in online TV this year: It's becoming normal.http://readwrite.com/2013/05/01/why-2013-is-a-watershed-year-for-tvs-online-future
http://readwrite.com/2013/05/01/why-2013-is-a-watershed-year-for-tvs-online-futurePlayWed, 01 May 2013 04:00:00 -0700John Paul TitlowDo We Really Need Amazon TV? No, But Amazon Does<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2825360016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzNDMzNjkxNjU1NDQ5.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Whether we want one or not, Amazon is building a connected TV set top box for us, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-24/here-comes-amazons-kindle-tv-set-top-box">according to <em>BusinessWeek</em></a>. The so-called Amazon TV device will stream Internet video to our televisions, presumably with a bias towards the company's own Instant Video selections. It may not be something consumers are clamoring for, but then again, neither was Amazon's <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/08/30/amazon-kindle-fire-is-sold-out">Kindle Fire</a>.&nbsp;</p><p>Indeed, Amazon's tablets offer a useful analogy for what we should expect from Amazon TV: an affordable device that mimics &nbsp;existing offerings with direct connections into Amazons products and services. The idea is to provide just enough value to carve out a respectable slice of the market. In the process, Amazon sets up another entryway into its universe of content and goods. As The Verge smartly put it, <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/25/4263262/how-the-living-room-became-prime-territory-for-amazon">it's all about the ecosystem</a>.&nbsp;</p><h3>See Also:&nbsp;<a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/09/06/what-the-new-kindle-means-to-amazon">What The New Kindle Means To Amazon</a></h3><p>The Kindle Fire didn't turn out to be the "iPad killer" some predicted, but it appears to be selling fairly well. The class of 7-inch tablets it helped popularize were popular enough to induce Apple to release the iPad Mini. For Amazon, the Kindle Fire isn't a huge money maker, but it plugs millions of people (and their credit cards) into Amazon's storefront. Expect the Amazon TV to do the same.&nbsp;</p><h2>Another Streaming TV Box? Really?&nbsp;</h2><p>This makes total sense for Amazon as a business, but why do we, the buyers, need another set top box?</p><p>Each of the devices on the market has its own benefits, but none of them are a slam dunk. Boxee's buzz has given way to <a href="http://gigaom.com/2013/04/09/boxee-cloud-dvr-rebranding/">an identity crisis</a>, while Google has yet to apply the proper amount of polish to Google TV. The Roku has tons of content, but <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/03/30/10_airplay-ready_ipad_apps_that_make_apple_tv_wort">Apple TV's AirPlay feature offers even more</a>, letting iPhone and iPad users stream anything from their devices onto the big screen. It's really the Apple TV that Amazon is taking aim at here. And the Apple TV, it's worth noting, has not generated iPad levels of popularity or excitement.&nbsp;</p><p>Maybe that's the point. This could be a preemptive strike on Amazon's part. Whether Apple launches an HDTV set or not, the company is widely expected to make a splash in the Internet TV market sometime this year. By launching something with a TV app store, or at least an AirPlay equivalent, Amazon could beat Apple to the punch. That sounds a lot better than launching an inferior (albeit still good and, crucially, cheaper) competitor after the fact, as Amazon did with the Kindle Fire.&nbsp;</p><h2>How Amazon Can Nail This - And Apple&nbsp;</h2><p>In that sense, this is a huge opportunity for Amazon. A super-cheap device with a bulletproof user experience (this is TV, after all) that taps into a rich app development ecosystem could blow away the Rokus, Boxees and Apple TVs of the world. For consumers, the goal is to get as much content as possible on the new device, including a Web browser. If <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-review">Aereo survives</a>, Amazon should have an app for that, right alongside Hulu, Netflix and all the little guys building innovative video apps with awesome user interfaces.</p><h3>See Also: <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/the-internets-assault-on-traditional-tv-is-working">The Internet Assault On Traditional TV Is Working</a></h3><p>Whatever shows it plays, the Amazon TV box has to be&nbsp;absolutely&nbsp;painless to operate. Television has been dead-simple to use for decades, a fact that the makers of many Internet TV products seem to forget. None of these boxes will truly take off TV watchers find them the slightest bit confusing or intimidating.</p><h2>Don't Mess This Up, Amazon</h2><p>Here's what we <em>don't</em> want: A half-decent piece of hardware that pushes you toward Amazon's content but doesn't let you stream Hulu Plus or YouTube videos. The things most people want to watch are fractured across these devices as it is. The reason Apple's AirPlay is so promising is that I can get almost everything I want to see on my iPad - and then beam it to my TV.&nbsp;</p><p>You know what doesn't work with AirPlay though? The Amazon Prime iPad app. There's no good reason for that other than the fact that Apple and Amazon are rivals. We consumers shouldn't get caught in the middle of a corporate spitting match and get stuck with a crappier experience as a result (I'm talking to you, Apple Maps).&nbsp;</p><p>It's clear why Amazon is working on a device like this. It makes total sense from the company's perspective. As long as Amazon also takes the consumer's perspective into account ours, this could be huge.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p></p>Amazon TV makes total sense from the company's perspective. To succeed, though, it also needs to make sense for consumers.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/do-we-really-need-amazon-tv-no-but-amazon-does
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/do-we-really-need-amazon-tv-no-but-amazon-doesPlayThu, 25 Apr 2013 15:24:00 -0700John Paul TitlowThe Internet Assault On Traditional TV Is Working<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2825150028266" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a4.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzNDI0Mjk2NDE5OTQy.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Compared to the music and news industries, the television business has so far managed to avoid being upended by the disruptive forces of the Internet. That's about to change.</p><p>Despite the industry's furious efforts to starve or shut down its online rivals, the Internet is starting to&nbsp;carve out a respectable slice of TV's future. The good news is that while the coming transistion is likely to be rough on many established networks and providers, it's going to be great for consumers and developers. Here's how.</p><h2>Netflix Bounces Back, Surpasses HBO&nbsp;</h2><p>Case in point: Netflix. The video subscription service has bounced back from its 2011 faux pas to not only regain members, but surpass HBO in U.S. subscribers for the first time ever. As Quartz's Zach Seward points out, <a href="http://qz.com/77067/netflix-now-bigger-than-hbo/">Netflix now commands more daily attention</a> than any cable channel in the United States.&nbsp;</p><h3>See Also:&nbsp;<a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/do-we-really-need-amazon-tv-no-but-amazon-does">Do We Really Need Amazon TV? No, But Amazon Does</a></h3><p>Netflix's dominance over HBO in particular makes for some pretty symbolic future-of-TV discussion fodder. It is, after all, HBO that refuses to offer its programming as a stand alone subscription service, despite growing demand for such a option. It is precisely its old media business relationships and norms that are holding HBO back from letting non-cable subscribers use its HBO Go app, a fact that seems worth recalling at this particular moment in history. It's no wonder that the company's CEO is <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/hbo-streaming-idUSL1N0CD7WP20130321">publicly rethinking that strategy</a> and admitting to reporters that cable-free access to HBO Go may be an inevitability.</p><p>It's also interesting to note, as <a href="http://qz.com/77067/netflix-now-bigger-than-hbo/">Seward does</a>, that HBO started out much like Netflix did, by first making out-of-theater movies available to subscribers, and then moving into original programming.&nbsp;</p><h2>The Internet Masters What Matters: Programming</h2><p>For the last few years, it was the hardware, distribution and overall experience of watching TV that started to change at the hands of the Internet and mobile tech. Now, crucially, we're getting down to what matters most: the stuff that actually draws viewers.&nbsp;</p><p>The trend toward original, Internet-only, TV-style programming is <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/12/28/5-ways-tv-will-evolve-in-2013">something we tech blogs have watched and opined about</a> for the better part of a year. In the first half of 2013, the theoretical promise of original Internet TV has morphed into a confirmation that it is, in fact, something normal, non-techie people care about.</p><p>Netflix's <em>Lilyhammer</em> may not have changed the landscape, but it was an important precursor to <em>House of Cards</em>, which appears to be doing exactly that. Meanwhile, Hulu, Amazon and YouTube continue to make their own investments in original programming to compete with cable and network TV.&nbsp;</p><p>The success of <em>House of Cards</em> has led to a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/">great deal</a> of <a href="http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671893/the-secret-sauce-behind-netflixs-hit-house-of-cards-big-data">discussion</a> about <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/11/netflix-data-gamble/">the rise</a> of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/business/media/for-house-of-cards-using-big-data-to-guarantee-its-popularity.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">data-driven TV programming</a> and what it <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9858710/House-of-Cards-the-future-of-TV-has-arrived.html">means for TV's future</a>. Unlike the people who have traditionally made TV programming decisions, Netflix is <a href="http://gigaom.com/2012/06/14/netflix-analyzes-a-lot-of-data-about-your-viewing-habits/">sitting on a mountain of data </a>about its users. That includes 30 million plays and 4 million ratings per day, in addition to details about when people watch, from which devices, which parts they rewind and more.</p><p>By looking at this trove of data, Netflix was able to place a pretty safe bet on the notion that a remake of this particular BBC show starring Kevin Spacey and directed by David Fincher would do well.&nbsp;</p><p>Netflix isn't the only company tapping its users to help with video programming decisions. This weekend, Amazon asked viewers to rate the pilot episodes of 14 different Web series, which apparently <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/22/amazon-original-pilots-see-big-viewing-stats-over-the-weekend/">resulted in quite a few views</a> for the original programs. The company hasn't launched a stand-alone Netflix competitor, but Amazon Prime appears poised to evolve into such an offering. There's even an <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-24/here-comes-amazons-kindle-tv-set-top-box">Amazon TV set top box rumor</a>, hot off of the presses.<br tml-linebreak="true" /><br tml-linebreak="true" /></p><div tml-image="ci01b28238d0016d19"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMzE4NTMyODQ0ODI1.jpg" /></figure></div><h2>Aereo: Please Excuse This Interruption</h2><p>Next month, people living in and around Boston will be able to join New York's early adopters in subscribing to <a href="http://aereo.com">Aereo</a>, an innovative and controversial Internet TV service. Since its launch, Aereo has under assault by much of the TV industry, which claims its antenna-renting and re-broadcasting model of mobile and Web TV amounts to copyright infringement. That may or may not be true, but it's certainly threatening their business model, which is why they wasted no time in trying to sue Aereo out of existence.&nbsp;</p><p>So far, Aereo has prevailed. That is, early court rulings have sided with the startup's claims of fair use and thus declined to shut it down before the lawsuit goes to trial, which will undoubtedly be an interesting affair to follow.&nbsp;</p><p>If Aereo survives this litigious onslaught, it's poised to be one of the most disruptive forces the industry has seen in awhile. And while that would be bad news for network executives, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-review">it's actually pretty great for consumers</a>, who will be able to tune into broadcast TV online without dealing with rabbit ears or a cable provider. It would also be a huge win for the Internet in the battle for TV's future.</p><h2>The Original Web Programming Revolution Continues</h2><p> The next big test for Internet-only TV will be the return of cult classic <em>Arrested Development</em>, a new season of which will land on Netflix next month, eight years after Fox dropped the original. If the show's enduring popularity and <em>House of Cards'</em>&nbsp;recent success are any indication, May will be a good month for Netflix.&nbsp;</p><div tml-image="ci01b2825210018266"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzNDI3MjQ5MjA0NTA1.jpg" /></figure></div><p>We won't actually know how well <em>Arrested Development</em> does, though. That's because like <em>House of Cards</em> and everything else on Netflix, it isn't tracked by the same TV ratings system that has measured TV viewership in the U.S. for six decades. The only numbers we get from Netflix are the ones it chooses to share. The company isn't typically generous with that data, which is somewhat ironic considering how much its users willingly hand over.</p><p>That all might be about to change, as <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/02/21/nielsen-internet-tv-ratings">Nielsen gets ready to update its TV audience measuring methodology</a> to include Internet sources. It's not clear whether the long-overdue update will track views on Netflix when it gets rolled out this fall, but the normalization of TV measurement should help paint a clearer picture of what's getting watched, regardless of the distribution channel.&nbsp;</p><p>If nothing else, the Nielsen update further illustrates the extent to which TV is changing in the age of streaming services and mobile devices.&nbsp;</p>Why 2013 is shaping up to be the year the Internet upends traditional TV.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/the-internets-assault-on-traditional-tv-is-working
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/25/the-internets-assault-on-traditional-tv-is-workingPlayThu, 25 Apr 2013 05:30:00 -0700John Paul TitlowYouTube's iOS Livestreaming Feature Is A Win For Cord Cutters<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b28241b0016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMzU2OTE5MTgwNTY5.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Watching Coachella from your phone just got easier. At long last, iOS users can tap into YouTube's live video streams, thanks to an update <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youtube/id544007664?mt=8">pushed out to the app</a> yesterday.&nbsp;</p><p>It may seem like a minor thing, but the addition of livestreaming support to YouTube for iOS is a pretty nice touch, especially if you're getting your "TV" content from your tablet or smartphone. This is a win for cord cutters.&nbsp;</p><p>As somebody who relies exclusively on Internet streaming boxes and mobile devices to fill their 48" HDTV screen with moving pictures, I've long wished YouTube's native app would give me access to the live-streamed stuff. In recent years, YouTube has been making live video feeds available for whatever major political and entertainment events they can get the rights to stream. This includes music festivals like Coachella, sporting events and just about every major televised event in the course of each presidential election. You know, exactly the kind of thing for which we tune into live TV.</p><h2>Internet TV User Experience: It's Getting There...</h2><p>The problem with relying on the Internet for TV content is that the user experience is unpolished. As exciting as all this new TV tech might seem, there's still something to be said for sitting in front of a television set, pressing a button and leaning back. You can't really do that with Internet TV, but the experience is getting there.&nbsp;</p><p>Part of the equation is smart app design such as that found in <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/12/17/who-needs-cable-3-ipad-apps-that-glue-me-to-my-tv">iPad video apps like Frequency, ShowYou and Vodio</a>. &nbsp;YouTube's own four-month-old iPad app&nbsp;is <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/12/05/hands-on-with-youtubes-new-ipad-app-a-huge-improvement">the best the service has ever looked on Apple's market-leading tablet</a> (it's naturally quite at home <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.youtube&amp;hl=en">on Android</a> as well). &nbsp;Still, while a great mobile app UI is important, it's useless without the means to get it to the TV, which is where technologies like Apple's AirPlay come in.&nbsp;And of course, the most crucial part of all is the content itself. This update stands to make YouTube a much better source of that content. Meanwhile, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-review">if Aereo survives the TV industry's litigious onslaught</a>, it will be, if you'll pardon the buzzword, a total game-changer for this type of TV-viewing experience.&nbsp;</p><h2>YouTube's Role In TV's Future</h2><p>On the content front, YouTube has been ramping up its <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/05/24/the-webs-original-tv-show-ramp-up-continues-on-hulu-and-youtube">original, TV-style content</a> for awhile now, even opening its own TV studio in Los Angeles. Like Hulu and Netflix, YouTube knows that people are going to be turning to the Internet for more and more &nbsp;of their TV-viewing, and they want to stake out as big of a slice of that pie as possible.&nbsp;</p><p>But while binging on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367279/"><em>Arrested Development</em></a> on Netflix is great and all, certain shows and events are best enjoyed live. Trying to tune into those things via tablets and streaming boxes is a pretty clunky experience. As the interfaces mature and content selection widens, it's going to get better. YouTube is one of players that will be right at the heart of this evolution, which will lead to the future of what we now think of as "TV." Adding live streaming support inches us toward that future just enough that it's worth noting.&nbsp;</p><p>This is not a blockbuster, life-altering feature for cord cutters - It's not like HBO just gave us all HBO Go access for free out of the kindness of their hearts - but it's an important step toward making mobile devices more suitable sources of television-style content. Combined with apps like Aereo and Hulu Plus, YouTube makes "TV" something that increasingly comes from the Internet, not from cable providers.&nbsp;</p>It may seem like a minor detail, but YouTube's new live stream access on iOS is a nice touch for cord cutters.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/16/youtubes-ios-livestreaming-feature-is-a-win-for-cord-cutters
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/16/youtubes-ios-livestreaming-feature-is-a-win-for-cord-cuttersPlayTue, 16 Apr 2013 09:58:28 -0700John Paul TitlowWhy I Need Aereo TV — And You Do, Too [Review]<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2823820016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a1.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMzE1ODQ4NjIxMzM3.jpg" /></figure></div><p>The first time you launch <a href="http://aereo.com">Aereo,</a> you start to see why TV network executives are losing their minds. It's not because the service feels like it's doing anything wrong. Quite the opposite. For the consumer, it's doing almost everything right.</p><p>When you log in, you're shown a TV Guide-style listing of shows that are currently airing. It's not just the four or five obvious options, either. In the New York market, there are 30 broadcast channels that Aereo grabs and rebroadcasts to your account via the tiny antenna you're effectively renting from the company when you sign up.</p><h3>See Also: <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/01/to-truly-stop-aereo-tv-broadcasters-need-to-innovate">To Truly Stop Aereo, Broadcasters Need To Innovate Like Hell</a></h3><p>It's mostly typical broadcast fare: local news, daytime soap operas, people having meltdowns on Maury, prime time sitcoms, PBS and so forth. All the standard broadcast networks are augmented with local channels, foreign language networks and an inordinate amount of religious programming. The selection may not be as robust as that of cable, but some of the most popular shows on TV are waiting there, ready to be watched or DVR'ed to the cloud for later.</p><h2>TV On Any Device, Second Screen And All</h2><p>Aereo doesn't have native mobile apps yet, but it makes up for that with a very capable, cross-platform Web app. It works in the browser on my iPad and iPhone, from which it can be AirPlayed directly to my television via Apple TV. I didn't get the chance to test it, but I'm presuming Aereo works on most other modern browsers and platforms.</p><p>Thanks to iOS multitasking, I can close the browser and do other things like check email, browse the Web and tweet. You know, the second screen stuff we all do anyway. It all still works, even if we use our second screens to feed content to the first screen. The only drawback is that the transition from video to video is not entirely smooth with AirPlay. That experience should get better once Aereo develops native mobile apps and, eventually, lands on smart TV platforms.&nbsp;</p><p>I am admittedly not a huge TV person. Still, as I use Aereo's Web app from device to device, its value starts to feel more and more obvious. I can watch my favorite PBS shows, tune into the local news (for whatever reason) and watch popular prime time shows like 30 Rock and Parks and Recreation, all using the Internet, which is what I use for just about all other media consumption.&nbsp;</p><p>Indeed, after a few days of testing Aereo, I'm left with the distinct impression that this is not only a useful service, but something that needs to exist. I understand why it frightens the TV execs, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. This is a hugely innovative service that hands control back to the TV-viewing consumer in a way that wasn't possible before. I'm not a legal scholar, but the copyright infringement claims made by the big media conglomerates against Aereo seem like a stretch. So far, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/01/to-truly-stop-aereo-tv-broadcasters-need-to-innovate">the courts have agreed</a>.&nbsp;</p><div tml-image="ci01b28238d0016d19"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMzE4NTMyODQ0ODI1.jpg" /></figure></div><h2>The TV Antenna Of The Future</h2><p>Since Aereo launched, the television industry has been hoping to sue it out of existence. Early attempts to have the service shut down have been unsuccessful, thanks to legal logic that may well wind up saving Aereo in the end. Meanwhile, the networks are clamoring for a plan B, which, if you believe the claims of network execs, includes <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/news-corp-coo-threatens-to-pull-fox-broadcast-signal-if-aereo-prevails-in-legal-battle/">threats to pull out of broadcast TV</a> all together. (Said threats are, of course, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130408/12161722625/hilarious-ridiculous-networks-threaten-to-pull-channels-off-air-if-aereo-dish-win-lawsuits.shtml">unbelievably stupid</a>.)</p><p>Aereo does not disrupt the core broadcast business model. When I'm watching TV shows on my iPad using Aereo, I'm still seeing all the commercials, just like I would if I tuned in via an antenna on my television set. The problem is, my antenna sucks. On a good day, I can get four or five channels to display clearly on my TV, and even that involves some finagling. It feels decidedly old-fashioned to be tinkering with an antenna just to watch NBC.&nbsp;</p><p>By contrast, Aereo feels right at home in the 21st century. When you watch it, it doesn't feel like you're stealing anything. Instead, it feels like the service has restored your ability to conveniently tune into broadcast TV — an ability that's atrophied for years thanks to changing viewer habits and, consequently, expectations for picture and sound quality.</p><p>Broadcasters and TV service providers didn't come up with a good solution, so Aereo rose to the challenge. Aereo isn't stealing anything. It just wants to sell you the TV antenna of the future.</p><h2>Why Broadcasters Hate Aereo</h2><p>This infuriates broadcasters because it could eventually threaten the lucrative fees they get from cable providers, whose all-or-nothing, bloated content bundles suddenly look a little less attractive once a service like Aereo is available for $13 per month. Combined with Netflix and Hulu, Aereo makes cable look less necessary than ever and all three combined are still cheaper than most cable bills.&nbsp;</p><p>I have no interest in subscribing to cable. It's expensive and the vast majority of what I'd be paying for is, so far as I can tell, complete garbage. Instead, I catch up with favorite shows via the Internet, where I can also find a growing selection of perfectly worthwhile non-TV video. Aereo is perfect for people like me.</p><p>More importantly, it could be an easy sell to many in the upcoming generation of "cord never getters" who are now totally accustomed to getting their TV online.&nbsp;We like to think about what the future of TV might look like. If it survives, Aereo seems very well positioned to be a part of that picture.</p>After a few days of testing Aereo, it's clear that it's just a useful service — it's one that actually makes broadcast TV relevant again. Broadcasters shouldn't sue it out of existence.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-review
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/09/aereo-should-exist-hands-on-reviewPlayTue, 09 Apr 2013 12:42:00 -0700John Paul TitlowHow To Watch Major League Baseball Games Online <!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2822c30026d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjY1MTE0MTg5MDgx.jpg" /></figure></div><p>For baseball fans, it's an exciting time of year. For those who prefer to stream games online, however, the anticipation can be tinged with a bit of frustration. That's because baseball games are still easiest to find on traditional cable or satellite TV.</p><p>Fortunately for cord cutters, there are some options when it comes to tuning in online, some of them more, shall we say, up to legal snuff than others.&nbsp;</p><p>First and foremost, there's <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp?product=mlbtv&amp;affiliateId=MLBTVREDIRECT">MLB.tv.</a> That's the official subscription streaming service of Major League Baseball in the U.S. For $20 per month, fans can live stream games in high definition from their browser with DVR-style control. For $25 per month, they can get access from iOS devices, Apple TV, Roku, Playstation 3, XBox 360 and more than 300 other devices.</p><p>For fans fanatic enough to throw $130 a year at a multi-device subscription service, MLB.tv looks like the way the go. But there's a catch — and it's a big one.</p><h2>Hey! I Paid $130 And Can't Watch The Home Team?</h2><p> Because cable companies and broadcast networks have a way of ruining things, MLB.tv only includes out-of-market games. That means that if I'm in Philadelphia, I can't stream the Phillies game from any of the MLB apps, because Comcast SportsNet is paying big bucks for the exclusive rights to those games.</p><div tml-image="ci01b2822c90018266"><figure><img src="http://a3.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjY2NzI0OTM4MzQy.jpg" /></figure></div><p>MLB, in turn, wants to preserve that relationship by ensuring high-as-can-be ratings. As is so often the case, this arrangement works beautifully for the sports league and service providers, but sucks for viewers.&nbsp;</p><p>One way to thwart this home team blackout is by using a VPN service like <a href="https://www.witopia.net/">WiTopia</a>, <a href="http://www.goldenfrog.com/vyprvpn">VyperVPN</a> or <a href="http://strongvpn.com/">StrongVPN</a> to trick MLB into thinking you're located elsewhere. It might technically be dishonest, but it is, so far as I can tell, perfectly legal.&nbsp;</p><p>A less legally straightforward option would be to tune into pirated streams from shady third party sites. Sites like firstrowsports.eu and vipbox.tv are neither the best designed or safest looking sites in the world, but for desperate fans who want to tune into games without paying, they certainly offer the goods. Sites that offer pirated streams typically do so via links to Flash-based video streams or require users to download a desktop app — at one's own risk, of course.&nbsp;</p><p>Alternatively, some users prefer to use a Slingbox to remotely tune into games using their home's pay television service or broadcast hookup.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Lead photo courtesy of<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Batteur_duc_baseball.jpg"> Wikipedia</a><br tml-linebreak="true" /></em></p>Baseball season is here, but not all of us have traditional TV setups. Here's your guide to catching the next big game online.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/02/how-to-watch-baseball-games-online
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/02/how-to-watch-baseball-games-onlinePlayTue, 02 Apr 2013 10:41:00 -0700John Paul TitlowTo Truly Stop Aereo, TV Broadcasters Need To Innovate Like Hell <!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2822aa0018266" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjU4MTM0ODY3MjI1.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Television broadcasters are freaking out. Certain that the courts would see things their way, companies like CBS, Comcast and News Corp. instead found that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-in-appeals-court-setting-stage-for-trial-on-streaming-broadcast-tv.html?_r=0">the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aereo</a>, an Internet TV service they've been trying to shut down for a year.&nbsp;</p><p>With Aereo's second legal victory under its belt, it might be time for broadcasters to focus on Plan B: to start, y'know, innovating like crazy.&nbsp;</p><h2>So Aereo Is A Go. For Now</h2><p>At issue is whether or not Aereo violates the broadcasters' copyrights by retransmitting local, over-the-air channels so its subscribers can access them from smartphones, tablets and an array of smart TVs and streaming set top boxes. When Aereo launched in New York last March, the broadcasters immediately asked a judge to shut it down via preliminary injunction, arguing that indeed, it violates copyright law by generating a legally forbidden "public performance" without paying compensation.&nbsp;</p><p>In its defense, Aereo has argued that the way it's retransmitting broadcasts — using tiny, remote antennae rented by its customers — does not constitute a public performance, since its use by individual viewers was inherently private. Aereo won a first round in court last July. Today, in a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the earlier ruling.&nbsp;</p><p>The networks will undoubtedly continue pushing their case, opening the prospect of a full trial and eventually, a possible Supreme Court ruling. Broadcasters, of course, have every right to pursue a legal case against Aereo. This is yet another example of how technology has evolved faster than the law can keep up and how we, as a society, need to figure this stuff out.</p><p>In the meantime, broadcasters should prepare themselves for the possibility that Aereo will win in court, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/01/09/aereo-expands-to-22-more-cities-are-you-ready-to-watch-broadcast-tv-online">allowing its expansion to continue.</a></p><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b2822b20016d19"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjYwMDEzOTg2NDA2.jpg" /></figure></div><h2>Why Aereo Exists</h2><p>Aereo is a pretty attractive service, especially for the cord cutter set. And for those who haven't yet considered canceling their cable subscription, products like this make it more tempting. It remains to be seen how much overall demand there is for Aereo, but the fact that it exists at all is pretty telling.</p><p>The legal niceties aside (those will be decided by courts, not blogs), Aereo is doing something innovative that empowers media consumers in a way that wasn't previously possible. That's because nobody — least of all broadcasters — made it possible. Now somebody is. &nbsp;</p><p>When the Internet rose to prominence, newspapers didn't have the luxury of suing its brains out. They had to deal with the ways in which their landscape was shifting, which was ultimately better for consumers. Similarly, broadcasts may not turn out to have that luxury with Aereo. Trying to sue them out of existence is not an unexpected response, but it may not succeed. They need a backup plan.&nbsp;</p><p>Should broadcasters have come up with this idea? It's nice to talk about how industries should disrupt themselves, but that's rarely how things actually work. It would have been totally counterintuitive for broadcasters to band together and develop the type of functionality that Aereo is offering. Smart, yes, but not necessarily a sound business decision within the framework in which these people generally think.&nbsp;</p><h2>What Should Broadcasters Do?&nbsp;</h2><div tml-image="ci01b2822bc0016d19"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjYyNDI5ODM0NTIx.png" /></figure></div><p>It's a fruitless debate anyway. Broadcasters didn't come up with Aereo. Aereo did. Now the Comcast and News Corps. of the world need to think about what they'll do in the event that the disruptive little startup prevails in court.&nbsp;</p><p>Aereo has <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/08/06/is-barry-diller-stealing-broadcasters-content-aereo-patent-applications-say-maybe-not">already filed four patents</a> that cover the precise technology its using, so it's probably not feasible to recreate its functionality. But what does Aereo do for viewers? It provides cheap, multi-channel, high-definition access to broadcast TV from an array of devices and allows for DVR recording. It lets you do all of this without paying for a cable subscription.&nbsp;</p><p>To their credit, cable companies are already working on ways to bring live TV to tablet and smartphone owners. Comcast's TV Everywhere&nbsp;initiative&nbsp;clearly anticipated trends in the way people watch programs that could threaten their core business model, so they moved on it.</p><p>But while services like TV Everywhere and&nbsp;<a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/02/21/why_comcasts_new_streaming_service_wont_deter_cord">XFinity Streampix&nbsp;</a>are nice, they're add-ons to a cable subscriptions, which some people simply don't want to deal with in the first place. It's unlikely that Comcast or Verizon is going to come up with a worthwhile Internet TV offering that doesn't hinge on their existing models — and the sky-high fees that support them.&nbsp;</p><p>Broadcast networks might not be able to rent out tiny antennae, but they don't need to, either: They already have much of the infrastructure in place to provide live Internet TV signals and make them available from mobile devices and connected TVs. If they band together and offer enough programming, they could charge a small subscription fee. Think <a href="http://hulu.com%20">Hulu</a> for live broadcast TV. In fact, yes, just tack this onto Hulu for a couple extra bucks. Bingo.&nbsp;</p><p>There may be sound business reasons why broadcasters wouldn't consider doing this. Their relationships with cable providers may not allow it. But that rigid, no-we-mustn't mentality is exactly what created the void that allowed Aereo to crop up in the first place. It might be time to change that mindset.</p><p><em>Lead photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/schmilblick/252772357/">schmilblick</a><br tml-linebreak="true" /></em></p>They can sue all they want, but broadcasters may wind up losing their case against the disruptive Internet TV service Aereo. If they really want to defeat the service, it's time to put some of that energy into innovating.http://readwrite.com/2013/04/01/to-truly-stop-aereo-tv-broadcasters-need-to-innovate
http://readwrite.com/2013/04/01/to-truly-stop-aereo-tv-broadcasters-need-to-innovatePlayMon, 01 Apr 2013 12:44:00 -0700John Paul TitlowCable Companies Still Whistling Past The Cord-Cutting Graveyard<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2822470016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzMjMxMDIzMDIyNjk0.jpg" /></figure></div><p>A collection of statistics released this month is creating doubts about the trend of "cord cutting" - when home viewers replace cable TV service with streaming video-over-Internet and over-the-air content. Cable companies are declaring victory, but when you dig deeper, there are signs that cable is still in trouble — and that what we're hearing are the sounds of denial.</p><p>In its <a href="http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/zero-tv-doesnt-mean-zero-video.html">Fourth-Quarter 2012 Cross-Platform Report</a>, ratings service Nielsen reported that in the U.S., there were more than five million households in 2012 that fit its definition of "Zero TV" homes. Zero TV is Nielsen's neutral, but still kind of inaccurate, description of cable-cutting households that get video entertainment via computer, smartphones and tablets.</p><p>Five million homes seems like a lot, especially when you consider that this is up from two million homes in 2007. Indeed, there were a lot of headlines proclaiming "Cable Cutting Up 150%! Comcast in Flames! Time Warner Out of Time!"</p><p>Well, actually, nothing like that.&nbsp;Because in reality, that's just 5% of the total TV market. Hardly enough for the cable companies to get worked up about. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has repeatedly made public comments dismissing the impact of cable cutting, and for now it appears that he's right. Cable's dominance would seem to reflect that there is not much to worry about with these cable companies.</p><p>Of course, that's what the Empire said about the Rebel Alliance.</p><p>Or, you know, what the telephone carriers once said about people who were giving up land-line phones in favor of wireless. The carriers used to insist the trend wasn't real, until better cell coverage and services like E911 accelerated it to the point that no one could deny it any more. Telco companies now offer TV and Internet service. Cable and satellite TV company may face a similar shift.</p><h2>Pay TV Numbers Aren't So Hot, Either</h2><p>Another set of statistics were released this month that point to a troubling sign for the cable and satellite companies: <a href="http://www.fiercecable.com/node/56157/print">SNL Kagan reported</a> that multichannel service providers (cable, satellite, and telco) managed to add just 46,000 customers in 2012, a lot of it in the fourth quarter, when 51,000 mew customers managed to reverse the shrinking number of subscribers in the second and third quarters of last year.</p><p>Forty-six thousand new users, out of a total of around 100.4 million, isn't even a statistical blip — 0.04% growth is by most definitions flatter than a pancake. The average year-over-year growth of Zero TV homes was pretty low, too - 0.59% since 2007 — but that's still a a factor better than paid TV subscriptions last year. You have to wonder if the television providers' claims that subscriptions were slow just because of the economic downturn were entirely accurate.</p><p>The U.S. is still in a slow recovery, so we will have to see if the upward trend of pay TV subscriptions continues before making any determination about pay TV's flatline growth being connected to the economy.</p><p>For all of the hand-waving about cord-cutting "not existing" or being unimportant, a key fact is being blissfully ignored: those 600,000 new Zero TV users each year have to come from <em>somewhere</em>. They are either existing cable TV customers or incoming customers who have decided to go to the Internet/streaming model instead. Either way, that's 5 million customers the pay TV providers don't have.</p><p>Last year, <a href="https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr_120410/">the NPD Group estimated that the average monthly cable bill would hit $100/month</a> sometime this year or next. Using that estimate for some back-of-napkin math, that means $6 billion in annual revenue is <em>not</em> going to pay TV.</p><p>Is it any wonder, then, that Comcast recently introduced a free sampling of its premium on-demand content in order to pull in more ongoing subscriptions to that content? Speculation about this promotion ranged from Comcast trying to better penetrate non-coastal markets that have a lower rate of on-demand video use to Comcast looking to juice up its margin.</p><p><strong>(See also:&nbsp;<a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/03/14/comcasts-watchathon-reminds-viewers-that-its-the-king">Comcast's Awesome Watchathon Reminds You It's Still the Boss</a>)</strong></p><p>Given flat growth, why not both reasons?</p><h2>Watch Out For The Killer App</h2><p>What the pay TV services need to watch out for is the killer app for cable cutters. In the transition from land lines to cell-only for my home phone, it was the E911 service that made the decision for us: making sure emergency services knew exactly where we were calling from was very important.</p><p>I suspect that a similar killer app for cable-cutters will be a way to get access to live sports content. Yes, you can get content from MLB, NHL or the NBA - but special events or sports that are not covered by these media packages can be a hassle to watch.</p><p>I myself am lamenting the ongoing coverage of the NCAA Women's Basketball tournament on the ESPN channels this month, because I can't watch Notre Dame progress through the tournament. Unless one of the over-the-air networks broadcasts a game, I'm out of luck. Unless, I get cable again.</p><p>Sports are perhaps the biggest reason (on the content side) holding people back from switching away from pay TV. If a network like ESPN or the new Fox Sports Channel were to take its oh-so-important broadcast rights and offer its content to Internet subscribers directly, that would probably be a nightmare scenario for pay TV companies.</p><p>It's hard to imagine a situation where that would happen today, but if sports networks see a chance to make more revenue without giving TV providers a cut, would they take the shot?</p><p><em>Image courtesy of <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a><br tml-linebreak="true" /></em></p>Cord-cutting doesn't look like a huge deal so far — at least, until you take a closer look at the numbers. Cable and satellite TV providers might want to brace themselves.http://readwrite.com/2013/03/27/pay-tv-broadcasting-sounds-of-self-denial
http://readwrite.com/2013/03/27/pay-tv-broadcasting-sounds-of-self-denialPlayWed, 27 Mar 2013 07:44:00 -0700Brian Proffitt